Albemarle County Planning Commission

November 13, 2007

The Albemarle County
Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, November 13,
2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second
Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.

Members attending were
Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Jon Cannon; Bill Edgerton and Pete
Craddock. Absent was Eric Strucko and Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman. Julia
Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was
absent.

SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) Special
Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA
Zoning District

COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas uses in Rural Area 1

LOCATION: Tax Map 46, Parcel
15: West of U.S. Route 29N accessed via a gravel drive, approximately 0.15
miles north of Ashwood Boulevard [Rte. 1670]

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio

RELATED APPLICATION:
Amendment to SP 2003-026

(Gerald Gatobu)

Mr. Gatobu presented a power
point presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report.)

·The property
is zoned RA and Entrance Corridor. In this case the ARB was not involved with
the review because the tower is at least 500’ away from the Entrance Corridor.

·The proposal
is for a co-location of one array consisting of 6 new antennas that are
approximately 140’ on an existing 180’ tall tower with additional supporting
ground equipment.

·There are 3
other special use permit approvals. SP-1997-13 allowed for building the tower
itself at a maximum height of 200’. The last special use permit approved on
this site was SP-2003-26 that allowed the co-location of at least 9 new antennas
of approximately 155’.

·The tower is
actually in an Airport Impact Area. Ms. Joseph asked staff to see if there was
anybody at the Airport who had any comments or questions about it being in the
Airport Impact Area. Staff contacted Barbara Hutchinson, Executor Director of
the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport Authority. In the last email she said
that they had to file something with the Federal Aviation Authority. The
applicant may not have to file since it is a co-location. But, that is
something that the applicant can address. From Ms. Hutchinson’s standpoint the
FAA may not have any issues or comments with it since they were co-locating on
an existing tower. The applicant will need to address whether they have
actually contacted the FAA.

·The applicant
is asking for some modifications in terms of the flush mounting and the
modification of a tree conservation plan. There is no additional land
disturbance being proposed because it is just a co-location. According to
Section 5.1.4.e the Board of Supervisors can modify in terms of the special use
permit during the review.

·Based on
staff’s review they are recommending approval with conditions.

Ms. Joseph opened the public
hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.

Maynard Sipes, Attorney with
LeClair Ryan, said that he represented Verizon Wireless, the applicant in this
matter. Also present is Stephen Waller with Wireless Resources Incorporated,
who is a consultant to the applicant. They appreciate staff’s work. Staff’s
report was thorough and made a finding that the additional antenna would not
provide any additional detrimental impacts on adjacent properties or open space
resources in the area. They currently envision mounting 2 antennas on each
sector. They would like the conditions to remain open so that additional
antennas could be added to provide the additional service that may become needed
when more capacity is needed. The number of antennas reflects how much capacity
of calls can be handled. It is not just a matter of putting the antenna up and
covering the area with coverage. They will cover a certain radius of area with
the request, but they also need to address issues about the capacity.
Additional antennas allow for more calls to be handled on this location. There
is a condition in the staff report, as proposed, that will limit the size of
this array to not exceed that of the existing arrays on the tower. That
condition is on page 9 and is 3c, which hopefully will address any questions
about the size of the array. If there are any other questions or comments, they
are certainly happy to address them.

Mr. Craddock asked when his
antenna reaches capacity does it spill over into the other antennas to answer
the phone.

Mr. Sipes asked Mr. Waller
to speak about capacity issues.

Stephen Waller, a consultant
with Wireless Resources who is a consultant to Verizon, said that the issue of
capacity really depends on the sector. The sectors are set up in different
degrees. As more customers get into the area there is a need for more
capacity. What they would like to do is have the option to add 2 additional
antennas in the future without hopefully having to come back to amend the
special use permit, but just doing it through a building permit. Once the
mounting brackets are installed they would allow up to 4 antennas, which would
increase the capacity. Regarding the size condition, the antenna information
was given just to show that they are well below the 1,152”, which is the minimum
for antennas allowed by right. The 7’ height and 2’ width is a carry over from
the old special use permit. They would like to have some lead way in case the
technology changes. As shown, the technology has changed where they are able to
use a lot smaller antennas. But, that is not to say that the technology won’t
change in the future to where they may have to increase their antenna sizes. If
they could keep their condition in line with what is already allowed with the
1,152” for by right antenna that the 7’ height and the 2’ width is not as big of
a deal. It is not guaranteed that the antennas will be smaller and they want to
be governed by the overall allowed by the ordinance.

Mr. Kamptner said that if
they go with the 7’ height it will be slightly more than a 13” wide antenna
would keep each antenna under the 1,152 square inches provided in the
regulations or ordinance.

Mr. Sipes noted that the
applicant is amendable to all of the conditions suggested by staff.

Mr. Edgerton asked if they
were proposing to start off with 4 arrays and be able to add 2 later.

Mr. Waller replied that they
were starting off with 6 possibly with 2 per sector in the 3 sector array. They
would like to be able to expand up to 12 antennas.

Mr. Edgerton noted that the
drawings show 12 antennas and the conditions limit it to 4 antennas. He
suggested that they get that straight. On page 10, paragraph 8 the tower shall
be limited to a total of 4 vertical arrays.

Mr. Waller replied that
speaks to the arrays themselves. At this time they would be the fourth array on
the tower. The array is all of the antennas on each level. If there is a limit
on the size that is any different than what is here, they would like to take the
1,152 square feet that would allow the by right. But, they can live with the 7’
and 2’ as well. They do not want to be limited to the proposed size.

Mr. Zobrist said that there
are going to be 3 panels in the array with each having 2 antennas on them. The
applicant wants the ability to put 4 antennas on each of those panels.

Mr. Waller replied exactly
that they want the ability to add to it at the time that the need for additional
capacity arises.

Mr. Sipes pointed out that
the conditions before the Commission was acceptable because it allows for the
additional capacity that they may need. The 1,152 square inch requirement is
already in the ordinance and does not need to be put into the conditions.

Ms. Joseph asked if the
applicant has a problem with checking with the FAA.

Mr. Waller replied that is
already part of the federally regulated requirements of the engineer. She has
already confirmed that no further FAA review is required.

Ms. Joseph invited other
public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.

Mr. Kamptner suggested the
following modifications to the conditions:

·That condition
3b is deleted because it is already required by the regulations.

·The first line
of 3d should be clarified as follows: The replacement of dishes and antennas
attached to this tower may be approved administratively, and the rest of the
language as is.

·That condition
3b is deleted because it is already required by the regulations.

·The first line
of 3d should be corrected as follows: The replacement of dishes and antennas
attached to this tower may be approved administratively, and the rest of the
language as is.

The motion for approval
passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Morris and Mr. Strucko were absent.)

Ms. Joseph stated that
SP-2007-00038, Carrsbrook (ATC) – Verizon Tier III PWSF, would go before to the
Board of Supervisors on January 9 with a recommendation for approval with the
conditions as follows.

All work shall be done
in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request and site
construction plans, entitled “Carrsbrook American Tower Corporation
Compound", with a final zoning drawing submittal date of July 19, 2007.

The tower shall not be
increased in height.

The additional array of
panel antennas may be attached only as follows:

All equipment
attached to the tower shall be painted to match the color of the tower.
The cables extending from the ground equipment may remain black.

The antennas shall
not exceed seven (7) feet in height and two (2) feet in width.

The antennas shall
be set at the minimum distance that is allowed by the mounting
equipment, and in no case shall any of the new antennas project from the
structure to a distance that is greater than that of the existing
antennas.

4.The
replacement of dishes and antennas attached to this tower may be approved
administratively, provided that the sizing, mounting distances and heights of
the replacement equipment are in compliance with these conditions of approval
and in accordance with all applicable regulations set forth in Section 5.1.40 of
the Zoning Ordinance.

With the exception of
any safety lighting required by Federal Aviation Administration regulations,
outdoor lighting shall be permitted only during maintenance periods;
regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire that is not
required for safety shall be fully shielded as required by Section 4.17 of
the Zoning Ordinance.

No existing trees within
200 feet of the facility shall be removed for the purpose of installing the
proposed antennae or any supporting ground equipment.

The current owner and
any subsequent owners of the tower and its supporting facilities shall
submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The
report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the
facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower
and the ground, are associated with each provider.

All equipment and
antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be
disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date
its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and
removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for
personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning
Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee
that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish
to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety
satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the
County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of
the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney.

The tower shall be
limited to a total of four (4) vertical arrays of panel antennas. No
additional relay, satellite or microwave dish antennas shall be permitted on
the tower without an amendment of this special use permit.

This special use permit
must be amended to allow either of the three existing arrays of panel
antennas to be:

relocated on the
structure;

modified to increase
the number or size of panel antennas; or,

modified to increase
the distance of the panel antennas from the structure.

Action on Modifications:

Motion:
Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded, for approval of the two modifications
for SP-2007-00038, Carrsbrook (ATC) – Verizon Tier III PWSF, for the flush
mounting requirements and for the tree modification plan because they are not
disturbing any trees.

The motion for approval
passed by a vote of 5:0. (M. Morris and Mr. Strucko were absent.)